JUDGMENT 1. - Since similar questions of law and facts are involved in these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by a common order. 2. A few essential facts would elucidate the nature of controversy: The petitioners in these writ petitions were appointed as Compounders. They were promoted as Male Nurse Gr. III and then as Male Nurse Gr. I. They were further promoted as Male Nurse GR. I by an order of the Director, Medical and Health Services, Rajasthan, Jaipur. There is no dispute between the parties that the petitioners are matriculate and so far as their technical qualification is concerned, they are all PNRC/RNRC/BPNA trained. The petitioners are claiming to be appointed as Male Nurse GR. I from the date they acquired qualification of General Nursing i.e. RNRC/BPNA/RNRC. There is also no dispute between the parties that a lot of litigation had taken place in the matter of grant of Gr. I to the Male Nurse/Compounder. In all the cases, the respondents, were directed to fix the male nurse/compounder on the post of Male Nurse Gr. I from the date they acquired qualification. 3. From the enumeration of the facts stated above, there is no dispute between the parties on the following facts: 1. That the petitioners in all the writ petitions are matriculate and they have acquired technical qualification from Bombay Pradesh Nursing Association or its equivalent Nursing Course from Punjab Nursing Registration Council or other equivalent courses. 2. The respondents have also not disputed that litigation took place between the Male Nurse Grade I and the respondents, in which the High Court as well as the Services Appellate Tribunal, directed the respondents to fix the Male Nurse/Compounders in Or. I from the date they acquired the above two qualifications. 4. The history of the litigation would reveal that one Shri Gajraj Mehta had initially filed a writ petition which was allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 27th March, 1973. An appeal was preferred by the State of Rajasthan. but the same was dismissed by the Division Bench In this regard, reference may be male to the State of Rajasthan v. Gajraj Mehta ( 1976(1) SLR 662 ) Thereafter Shri Kishan Singh Bhati tiled another writ petition on the same line. which was decided in 1976. Reference may be made to (2) 1976 WLN (UC) 361. but the same was dismissed by the Division Bench In this regard, reference may be male to the State of Rajasthan v. Gajraj Mehta ( 1976(1) SLR 662 ) Thereafter Shri Kishan Singh Bhati tiled another writ petition on the same line. which was decided in 1976. Reference may be made to (2) 1976 WLN (UC) 361. It appears that thereafter two more writ petitions No. 323/77 and 324/72, of similar nature were filed by Shri Jugal Kishore Joshi and Bhanwar Lal Bhati and the same were allowed by Hon'ble M.L. Joshi J. with the direction to fix the petitioner on the post of Male Nurse cum Compounder Gr. I with effect from the date their results were declared. Thereafter a bunch of writ petitions were filed bearing Nos. 256/77, 257/77, 258/77, 429/77 and 459/77. These writ petitions were allowed by Hon'ble Kasliwal J. by his order dated 23rd August, 1978, with the direction of fix the petitioners as Male Nurse cum Compounder |Gr. I with effect from the dates they acquired qualifications. In 1979 and 1979, writ petitions bearing No. 69 /78, 766/78, 614/78, 170/78, 618/78, 693/78 48/78, 215/78, 171/78, 55/79 and 75/179, were filed and they were allowed by Hon'ble G.M. Lodha, J. on 12th February, 1979, giving direction to fix the petitioner as Male Nurse/Compounder "r I with effect from the dates of their acquiring qualifications. In the year 1986, a writ petition No. 1766/85, was allowed by Hon'ble A.K. Mathur, J. by his judgment dated 26th April, 1986, with the direction to fix the petitioner as Male Nurse Gr. I with effect from the date of acquiring qualification. In the year 1987, D.B Civil Writ Petition No. 932/83, Gbeesu v. State of Rajasthan, decided on 12th October, 987 , a Division Bench at Jaipur Bench, decided the case and made the following observations: "We have heard Shri Lodha, the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the writ petition and the learned Addl. Government Advocate for the respondents. Sri Lodha has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in U.R. Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan and others (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 55/ 979. decided on 12/2/1979) and other writ petitions. We have perused the said decision in the case of U.R. Choudhary v. State of Raj . The said decision is based on earlier decision of this Court and in the said decision. decided on 12/2/1979) and other writ petitions. We have perused the said decision in the case of U.R. Choudhary v. State of Raj . The said decision is based on earlier decision of this Court and in the said decision. it has been laid down that the petitioners who had already passed the Punjab Nurses Registration Council Examination were entitled to be placed in the grade of Male Nurse Gr. I with effect from the date they acquired the two qualifications, namely matriculation and Bombay Pradesh Nursing Association or its equivalent Nursing Course from Punjab Nurses Registration Council. In this case, it is not disputed that on the date of his appointment on 2th October, 1961, the petitioner had passed High School Examination and after his appointment he passed the Punjab Nurses Registration Council Examination on 2nd December, 1961. The petitioner possessed both the qualifications required for the post of Male Nurse Gr I and the petitioner was entitled to be placed in the grade of Male Nurse Gr I with effect from 2nd Dec., 1961.The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. The respondents are directed to fix the petitioner on the post of Male Nurse Gr. I with effect from 2nd December, 1961 The petitioner would be entitled to all consequential benefits in view of the fixation. The respondents are allowed six months' time to pay the entire arrears after passing the order of fixation. T here shall be no order as to cost." 5. It may further he stated that a number of Male Nurses/Compounders Gr. I have filed appeals before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal. Three Appeals No 262/1979, 263/78 and 318/1979 were allowed by the said Tribunal vide its judgment dated 22nd August, 1979. Another two appeals No. 145/1919 and 148/1979 were decided vide judgment dated 31st August, 1979. In the appeal, a similar direction was given which was given by this Court in Gajraj Mehta's case and other cases referred to above. 6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that in view of the above referred judgment no dispute remains between the parties and the petitioners are entitled to be fixed on the post of Male Nurse Gr. I with effect from the date they acquired the qualification. 7. 6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that in view of the above referred judgment no dispute remains between the parties and the petitioners are entitled to be fixed on the post of Male Nurse Gr. I with effect from the date they acquired the qualification. 7. On the other hand, the respondents are still not satisfied with the judgments referred to above and therefore they are resisting the claim of the petitioners in the above referred cases. In these cases, the contentions of the respondents is that the petitioners have no legal right to claim for Gr.I in view of the fact that for physiotherapist and Compounder Gr.l. The essential qualification is that he must be matriculate and passed BPNA examination or its equivalent examination and employed in Class I or Class II Hospitals. The respondents have, thus, submitted that the case of the petitioner is not covered under the aforesaid qualification, inasmuch as he was never employed in Class I or Class II hospital and thus he is not entitled to be fixed in Gr. 1 with effect from the date be acquired the qualification. 8. Controverting the submissions made by the respondents, the learned counsel for the petitioners lave submitted that there is no justification for prescribing the condition of employment in Class I or Class II Hospitals. The contention of the learned counsel is that Male Nurses having the same academic and training qualification constitute one class. They discharge absolutely identical duties and their working conditions are identical. Therefore, there can be no justification for prescribing different pay scales in the cadre of Male Nurse. In short, the connection of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the condition of working in Class I and Class II Hospitals is wholly fortuitous. 9. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. In short, the connection of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the condition of working in Class I and Class II Hospitals is wholly fortuitous. 9. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. It is an admitted position and cannot be disputed by the respondents that in view of the various judgments referred to above, S/Shri Gajraj Mehta, Kishan Singh Bhati, Jugal Kishore Joshi, Bhanwar Lal Bhati, Lalu Ram, Pursbottam Bhatt, Mangi Lal, Dayal Singh, Daulal, Hari Narain, U.R. Chaudhary, Bherudas, Ramesh Chandra, Bhanwar Lal Verma, Kanhaiya Das, Bheru Lal, Janardhan Rai, Abbas Ali, Bhagwan Puri, Chandra Sen, Banshi Lal, Heera Lal, Kailash Nath Chauhan, Sham Lal and Ganpat lal were given the benefit of GR. I either from the date of their initial appointment, or from the date of passing of the General Nursing Course from PNRC/RNKC; but the same has been denied to the Male Nurses GR. I who did not approach either to this Court or to the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal. This clearly proves that the respondents believe in litigation rather than giving relief to its employees who have a valid right supported and well settled by the authoritative judicial pronouncement made by this Court or by the competent tribunal. Once the right of Male Nurse Gr I stood settled by judicial pronouncement, then the other similarly situated Male Nurses Gr. I are entitled to be fixed in GR. I with effect firm the date they acquired the requisite qualification and the State cannot be allowed to discriminate on the basis that the relief would be given only to those persons who have gone to the Court and it will deny the same relief to those who did not believe in litigation and have not gone to the court of law for vindicating their rights. Male Nurses Gr. I who have gone to the court of law and have got the relief from the Court and those though having the same qualification who have not gone to the Court. for all practical purposes are similarly situated and they are entitled for appointment and payment as Male Nurse Gr. I from the date of passing General Nursing Course from PN RC/RN RC. for all practical purposes are similarly situated and they are entitled for appointment and payment as Male Nurse Gr. I from the date of passing General Nursing Course from PN RC/RN RC. It is surprising that instead of various representations made by the petitioners and their association, the Government did not grant relief to them. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the action of the respondents in not acceding to the request of the petitioners or their association is patently against the petitioner's fundamental right under Arcs. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Further it is a case where the functionaries of the State have shown a scant regard to the series of judgments given by this Court as well as by the Service Tribunal. 10. If we consider the objection raised by the respondents that the petitioners are not entitled to the relief sought by them as they have not worked in Class I or Class II Hospitals. when they acquired the above referred qualifications, we find that it has no merit. The condition of working in Class I or Class II Hospitals for grant of pay scale as Male Nurse GR. I in our opinion is wholly arbitrary, irrational and illegal because the posting in Class I or Class II hospitals does not depend upon the choice of the petitioners. Posting of persons entirely depends upon the sweat-will of the competent authority and an employee has no say at all in this regard. An employee is duty bound to join at the place of posting. Thus, the condition of posting in Class I or Class II Hospitals is merely a fortuitous circumstance and such an exception cannot be made the basis of denial of pay scale. If such a condition is followed, it will result in absurd or discriminatory result, because the consequence would be that the person who is senior in Gr. I, if not posted in Class I or Class II hospital, he will be denied his right as compared to his junior what is given this grade merely on the basis of his posting in Class I or Class II hospital Taking this view of the matter, the stand taken Dy the respondents cannot be supported. I, if not posted in Class I or Class II hospital, he will be denied his right as compared to his junior what is given this grade merely on the basis of his posting in Class I or Class II hospital Taking this view of the matter, the stand taken Dy the respondents cannot be supported. If we look to the situation from a different angle, a question may be raised whether it is open to the respondents to contest the matter once again by raising a different and new plea which had not been raised in the previous litigation. We are of the opinion that such a question is no longer open for agitation that certain points had not been urged in the previous litigations. If such an action is allowed, it would amount to giving a new life to the litigation and the eroding effect of the judgment which, in our opinion, cannot be collaterally challenged and; for this view of the matter. we are supported by a recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anil Kumar Neotia v. Union of India ( AIR 1988 SC 1353 ) . 11. In the premises aforesaid, all the writ petitions are allowed. We direct the respondents to fix the petitioners in Gr. I Male Nurse/Compounder with effect from the date they acquired the requisite qualification and further direct the respondents to give all consequential benefits to the petitioners. We allow three months time to the respondents to give effect to the directions given in this order. We also direct the respondents to consider the case of all other Gr. I Male Nurses/Compounders who have acquired the requisite qualifications and to give them the benefit of Gr. I with effect from the date they acquired the said qualifications irrespective of the fact whether they have filed writ petition or not. 12. However, we leave the parties to bear their own costs.Petition allowed. *******